Down an Unfamiliar Road

The next time someone scolds you for making a mistake when trying to learn something new, remember this: very few things get perfected without leaving a trail of many, many slip-ups and miscalculations. To shy away from making mistakes, will never help you lose your fear of new experiences. Nothing holds us back more than to think that making mistakes is a bad thing. Here are five things I’ve read about making mistakes, that can change minds about their value. One: mistakes remind us that we are not perfect. This is good, because once you think you’re perfect, you stop trying to improve. Two: mistakes are a product of one’s free will. How will you know your limitations until you push against the strong wind of criticism. Three: mistakes can remind us of how fortunate we are. They will help us see how blessed we are with what we already have, instead of being upset over what we can’t get. Four: mistakes can be very motivating. There is a certain urge to try again each time we fail to hit the mark the first time. It’s almost like a dare that we can’t make it, and it builds up our desire to prove our critics wrong. And five: mistakes show that little is gained without taking certain risks. We all need improvement in areas of our lives where we are not happy with our past performances. It keeps the cycle of mistakes, learning, trying and improving going. So instead of continually saying: “I can’t make it,” start saying: “I haven’t made it yet, but I will.” – Dr Robert R Seyda

via Call it serendipity, call it a love story | Sunday Life, Lifestyle Features, The Philippine Star | philstar.com.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part III

NOTE: If you have a thorough knowledge of Old Testament history, these names are not a boring list of progeny, but each familiar name evokes a story or incident. Yet there have been many who do not want to accept that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. For instance, in a medieval Jewish polemic work concerning the claims found in Matthew and other Gospel writers it states: “Gabriel came as a messenger sent by God to Mary in her virgin state, when she was espoused to Joseph of the house of David, and He announced to her she would conceive and bear a son, who would be holy, and be called a son of the highest; that the throne of David would be assigned to him by the Lord God for occupation, and that he would reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there should be no end. This statement disagrees with those made in other parts of the New Testament, and cast strong suspicion on the veracity of a book asserted to be written under the influence of inspiration.”¹ I noticed that the writer quotes quite a number of scriptures from the Gospels and the writings of Paul. But the one he did not quote in this instance was Jesus’ answer to Pilate as to whether He was the King of the Jews as promised to David. Our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”² This is something that confused Nicodemus, who came to Jesus for more clarity. But the same answer the Master gave Nicodemus also applies to this skeptic. In order for him to understand the kingdom of our Lord he must first be born again.

But Christian writers were not silent on this subject of Jesus’s birth and who His father really was. In response to Jewish traditional stories that Jesus was born out of wedlock to a man named Joseph Panthera, one church father gives this rebuttal in his argument to a writer who attacked the Christian faith:

“Let us now return to where the Jew [in this story you told] is introduced, [where he was] speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was thrown out by the carpenter to whom she was engaged, for being guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, invented these stories in an attempt to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. But failing to do this in a credible manner, and their preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, they would have rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were expecting divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but not by concocting one of the vilest and most disgraceful falsehoods of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its merited and preceding actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men, stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.”³

It is also important to note that at the end the author of this Gospel states: “Mary was the mother of Jesus.” One writer has a very interesting and valid take in on the use of the name “Mary” for the mother of Jesus. He says: “In English this Hebrew name is usually rendered by the spelling “Miryam” in the Tanakh [Jewish Bible] and “Mary” in the [English] New Testament. This unfounded and artificial distinction produced by translators subtly drives a wedge between Yeshua’s mother and her own Jewishness. The original Miryam was the sister of Moshe Rabbenu (“Moses, our teacher”);⁴ and a prophet;⁵ in some respects she is seen as a role-model for the Jewish woman leader of today. But the name “Mary” evokes in the reader’s thinking an otherworldly image of “Madonna and Child,” complete with halos, beatific smiles and angels in array, instead of the New Testament’s portrayal of a down-to-earth Jewish lady in an Israel village managing her wifely, maternal and other social responsibilities with care, love and faith.” Then the writer goes on to say that she bore a child, “who is called the Messiah,’” or as the Greek text reads: “being called the Christ”. This must not be taken as the writer having any doubt about Jesus being the Messiah, but that since this was an objective biography of Jesus, the author wanted everyone to know that it was Yeshua of Nazareth, the son of the virgin Mary, who was being hailed as the Messiah, not some other Yeshua.⁶

Verse 17: “So there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David. There were also fourteen generations from David until the people were taken away to Babylon. And there were fourteen more from the time the people were taken to Babylon until the Messiah was born.” Many Bible scholars do not take this as being from the pen of Matthew, but the scribe who was putting his Hebrew text into Greek. It was not uncommon for scribes to enter comments or clarifications in the margins of their translations. This scribe knew that Matthew was an accountant; that he was acquainted with debits and receivables. In this case, he divides the genealogy of Jesus into three groups. First, all those who lived during the time of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Judges – from Abraham to Jesse. Then those who lived during the time of the Kings – from David to Josiah and the exile of the Jews into Babylon. Finally, during the leadership of the Princes and Priests – from the return of the exiles to Jacob. To the scribe, this was like balancing a checkbook. To those who might criticize that in order for Matthew to have fourteen generations in each segment, he manipulated not only the number but his choice of entrants, wanting to pick and choose those that would make our Lord’s past look the best, they should take note that Matthew’s did not remove unsavory characters from the list. As we can see, not everyone in this list was without spot or wrinkle. Abraham fathered a son out of wedlock. Jacob stole his older brother Esau’s birthright. Judah slept with his daughter-in-law, not knowing she was disguised as a prostitute. Rahab was a prostitute. Ruth, the Moabite, was a product of an earlier incest between Lot and his oldest daughter.⁷ At first this might seem to be a debased act on the part of Lot’s daughters. But Jewish scholars point out that this occurred prior to the giving of the Law. All those who were born prior to the generation of Isaac and his descendants, were the posterity of Noah. In one discussion by Rabbis on this subject, the question is asked: “Why did not Adam marry his daughter? So that Cain should marry his sister, as it is written, For I said, the world shall be built up by grace. But otherwise, she would have been forbidden to Cain? — Once however that it was permitted, it remained so.”⁸ Jewish scholars believe that Eve’s offense was followed by her early death, so Adam had no other choice but to find a helpmate among his own children because there were no others available.⁹ In other words, such incest by Lot’s daughters was permitted on the basis of need to keep Lot’s genealogy going since he had no sons, and thus was not a violation of any law given by God. Nevertheless, the outcome that the two sons ended up being Israel’s enemies might be interpreted as God’s response for what they did. However, one Jewish commentator does take note that with the oldest daughter having secured the future for her father’s name by becoming pregnant, the younger daughter had no need to follow suit. Her child was named ben Ammi, and his offspring were known as the children of Ammon. The second daughter’s child was named Moab, who became the father of the Moabites. So this misguided effort led to the grandnieces of Abraham producing two future enemies that their uncle Isaac’s descendants did not need. Says the writer, because of this, these two sons and their children “were forever barred from membership in the Jewish people.”¹⁰ Then we come to Bathsheba who committed adultery with David. This does not take into account the kings before him that were less than faithful to the Lord. To top it off, Mary became pregnant before she was married, something that was looked on with shame in her day. But it all served a purpose. God can use the best and the worst in order to carry out His will. That makes it possible for anyone to be part of the family of God. Although many pastors, when examining the membership rolls of their churches, would prefer to find listed only the finest, most educated, and highly moral people in town, a real church will have names of former drunkards, thieves, murderers, adulterers, etc. That’s why, as the old hymn goes, when the names are called up yonder, don’t be surprised if you hear some that you knew on earth were nothing but scoundrels and persona non grata in the community. It must be remembered that the Jews who doubted Jesus’ claim of Messiahship, did not have Matthew’s genealogy list at that time. But when they were told that Jesus was a carpenter’s son from Nazareth in Galilee, they dismissed His claims simply based on their preconceived ideas of who the Messiah would be and where he would come from. But within some thirty years, Matthew’s scroll was made available and they were given the evidence of His lineage to David and Abraham. Yet they still did not believe because of the biases and prejudices against Galileans and the children of common laborers. Strange that none of their portraits hang in Jewish homes today, but the picture of Jesus is exhibited on the walls of thousands and thousands of walls in Christians homes around the world.

1 Chizuk Emunah – Faith Strengthened by Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, Translated by Moses Mocatta, 1881, Part II, Ch. 32

2 John 18:36

3 Origen Adamantius (184-253 AD), “Contra Celsus”, Bk. I, Ch. 32, written circa 248 AD

4 Exodus 2:4-8

5 Ibid. 15:20

6 Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., Matthew 1:18

7 Genesis 19:37

8 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit., Seder Nezikin, Masekhet Sanhedrin, folio 58b

9 Ibid., footnote (11)

10 Tzror Hamor op. cit., Parshat Veyeyra, loc. cit. pp. 268-269

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part II (con’t)

Now comes a change in the descriptive linguistics. It reads: “Joseph was the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah.” This makes a difference in the way the genealogy ends. For some skeptics, it constitutes the largest stumbling block in crediting Jesus with being the son of David, since it implies that Jesus was “of” Mary, not “fathered by” Joseph. So skeptics ask: How then could He be considered a descendant of David, because proper genealogies are to be traced back through the fathers? First, there is a physical answer. Jewish Rabbis once had a discussion about a father being included in his daughters genealogy. They explained that this was only permissible: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you will allow his inheritance to be passed on to his daughter.¹ This made it clear to the Jews that a son takes precedence over a daughter.”² That is, if there is one. Based on this, scholars point to the fact that Mary’s father Joachim of Nazareth was a descendant of David.³ Therefore, since there is no record of Mary having any brothers, then the line of David could be passed on to Jesus through her, especially since Jesus was not conceived through contact with Joseph. Also in Mary’s case, according to tradition, Mary’s mother Anne was born in Bethlehem, and married Joachim of Nazareth, and both are descendants of David. Furthermore, even if Joseph was not the biological father, he too was of the line of David. So no matter what route one takes, Jesus’ genealogical line goes back to David. Then there is the spiritual answer: since God the Father caused Jesus to be conceived through the Holy Spirit, He is the one who said of David, “You are my son.”⁴ So again, spiritually speaking Jesus was of the lineage of David. Furthermore, ancient Jewish texts tell us: “The house of David is of royal lineage, being a descendant of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel.”⁵ Other Jewish writings also trace the family tree of the Messiah from the family of David in the line of Zerubbabel, and reckons the same number of generations from Zerubbabel to the Messiah, same as Matthew does from Zerubbabel to Jesus. According to another Jewish writer, he also points to Zerubbabel’s connection with David and says that from this line the king Messiah will be revealed.”⁶ When examining such genealogies we must keep in mind, with the different pronunciations of names, it is still the same list of forefathers. This should be proof for many Jews today, that according to their own account and expectations the Messiah must have come many, many years ago. What does not make any sense is the debate over Joseph, the husband of Mary. But some in the past have felt compelled to argue the point in trying to discredit Jesus. But that wasn’t all. The subject of her qualifications in being chosen as the one through whom the Son of God would enter the world as a human being, seemed to be lessened because she and Joseph then had other children. That’s why some 300 years after our Lord’s ascension into heaven, there were already dogmatic foundations being laid within the early church of what would later become the “veneration of Mary.” This defense of Mary then begin to exert themselves into the dialogue with Jews and skeptics. As in all religions at the time, it was fashionable to venerate those who were the leading figures in the beginning of these religions. We see this from the writings of one early church father who examined all the Christian sects that had risen from the time of the Church’s founding, and where they stood on accepting church doctrines at the time. He says: “...those who say that St. Mary, the ever-virgin, had intercourse with Joseph after giving birth to the Savior, I call them Antidicomarians.‘⁷”⁸ Also, this same early church father told that after Jesus was circumcised, embraced by Simeon in the Temple, and confessed by Anna the daughter of Phanuel, that He was taken to Nazareth. But two years later they returned to Bethlehem in time for the visit of the Magi. He says: “And in Bethlehem Jesus came to a house with his own mother and Joseph, who was an old man but was Mary’s companion.”⁹ This may account for the fact that after Jesus was 12 years old and found in the Temple debating with the elders, we hear no further mention of Joseph in the Scriptures. While Mary was without doubt favored of God, and chosen to bear His Son because of her character and innocence, there was no extra ordinary veneration of her in New Testament times. Today, while most Protestants are considered Antidicomarianites as it pertains to her ever-virgin status, and by believing that Mary and Joseph went on to have several more children after Jesus was born, they certainly are not opponents of Mary as a special woman chosen and blessed by God. One Jewish polemic writer on the story of Jesus, in commenting on the virgin birth of Jesus and how by not being of the seed of Joseph as her husband, therefore Jesus could never be considered the Messiah because there is no record that Mary can be traced to David, points to a Scripture Christians assigned to the Messiah: “Men from Judah’s family will be kings. The sign that his family rules will not leave his family until Shiloh [the real king] comes. Then many people will obey and serve him,”¹⁰ and mocks that Christians take this as a reference to Jesus. However, a very well-respected Jewish translator makes a note here on the original Hebrew text. He points out that it reads: “The scepter shall not pass from Judah, nor the mace from between his legs, that tribute to him may come and the submission of peoples to him.”¹¹ He explains, that the word “mace” comes from a Hebrew word that refers to a ruler’s long staff. As such, the same object is being referred to twice by different names to show that one stands for royalty and the other for power.¹² This clearly fits into what Christian theologians have made evident that Jesus came to fill three roles: Prophet, Priest, and King. While here on earth, He certainly filled His position as Prophet.¹³ Then, by way of the cross and His ascension He took His position as High Priest.¹⁴ And when He returns to rule and reign, He will come as the all triumphant KING of Kings.¹⁵ This Jewish writer goes on to say: “The word sceptre applies only to a king or prince because it is so written in Scripture.”¹⁶ The Jewish polemic writer we quoted earlier then has this to say: “If the critic of the Talmud will tell you that all of these verses refer to Jesus, who stemmed from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, ask him how he knows this genealogy. After all, to all the genealogies of Matthew and Luke one does not find one for Jesus and Mary. Now, if , as you say, Jesus was not Joseph’s son, then he has no relationship to this genealogy. If, however, you trace his lineage through Joseph, then you must admit that he had [an earthly] father. But unless you trace his lineage through Joseph, how can you prove that he stemmed from Judah and David?”¹⁷ This was written in the 13^th century in response to some Christian works in 1240 AD attacking the Jewish Talmud. While the author is anonymous, most Hebrew scholars believe that he was a German Rabbi, because of his use of many German words in the text. He also comments on a prophecy to David: “For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,”¹⁸ and how Christians have falsely identified this person with Jesus. He says, “How, then, can you say Jesus is a god when the verse calls him a man?”¹⁹ Then in his critique of the Gospels, the writer makes this observation, that in verse 16 Joseph is listed as “the husband” of Mary. He says, “Now, this is how we answer them: If she had not yet had sexual relations nor was she even married to her husband, then why is he called her husband? It should have said, ‘the betrothed of Mary,’ in which case they would not be stating an obvious falsehood in their liturgy when they say that he never had relations with her.”²⁰ What this writer completely overlooks is that by calling Joseph the husband of Mary, Matthew was stating the end result of their relationship after Jesus was born and then she and Joseph got married and perhaps had other children. Secondly, by calling Jesus the son of Joseph, the writer was not referring to him as the biological father, but His paternal parent as head of the family. We must also note that here Matthew calls Jacob the father of Joseph, while scripture tells us that the father’s name was Heli.²¹ Some scholars believe that whenever a man’s genealogy ends with a woman’s name, they would then insert her father’s name.²² Therefore, it could read, “Jacob was the father-in-law of Joseph, Mary’ husband.” And in wondering why Jesus was referred to as God when He was in fact a man, shows that the polemic writer did not understand that Jesus was God incarnate. Furthermore, this last verse in our text includes an interesting grammatical revelation. In referring to the progeny of each man the Greek word “egennēsen” signifies a father-son relationship and is utilized up to this point. But when it comes to Jesus’ relationship with Mary, the Greek word is changed to: “egennēthē”, which refers to Mary alone as the one who is responsible for the birth of Jesus. So here the Word itself bears witness that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a virgin woman without man’s contribution.²³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part II

Verse 6: “Jesse was the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon. (His mother was Uriah’s wife.)” The original Greek here is much more provocative than some English translators have permitted. True, by the time Solomon was conceived and born to David and Bathsheba, her former husband Uriah was dead and King David had legally married her. Most translators try desperately to impress that fact by indicating the legality of their union with such interjections as Uriah’s “widow”; “former wife,” etc. But the Greek simply says “her of Uriah,” thereby implying that even legal marriage had not been able to cover David’s sin of adultery and the staged murder of her husband. It must be noted that David already had more than one wife, now he was taking another man’s wife after talking her into having sexual relations with him, even though she protested. The Jews were not silent on this subject: “What are David’s two sins? That of Uriah and his illegal census of Israel. But there is a third one? That of Bathsheba? For that of Bathsheba he was punished, as it is written: ‘For the ewe he will pay fourfold.’¹ What were the four punishments? The death of Bathsheba’s first child, the death of David’s son Amnon, the misfortune of David’s daughter Tamar, and David’s son Absalom’s death.”² This provides a point of validity in the Scripture: even though the author was tracing the human lineage of the pure Son of God, he did not, nor was he persuaded to pass over this sordid point in David’s life. His imperfect heritage made Christ the perfect answer to the problems of all peoples.

Verses 7-8: “Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam was the father of Abijah. Abijah was the father of Asa. Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram. Jehoram was the father of Ozias.” The author is doing an admirable job in showing that Jesus was the only one in this accepted lineage of the Messiah by the Jews, who could possibly qualify as the true Anointed One. It has been pointed out that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament used by the United Bible Society in their Greek text says: “Abijah moreover begat Asaph.” However, the majority of Greek versions have “Abijah begat Asa,” showing the different ways Bible characters were referred to. The same goes for one Rabbi in the Mishnah who is referred to as “Jose” in one place and “Joseph” in another. Then we come to Ozias, because he is elsewhere referred to as Uzziah,³ and also identified as Azariah in Scripture.⁴ Furthermore, he was the great-great-grandson of Jehoram, because between them came sons Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.⁵ Some believe the writer may have done this because these kings were ineligible to be in the Messiah’s lineage because of the curse upon Ahab’s family, into which Jehoram married. For many scholars, the omission of these three kings does not affect what the author is attempting to do, and that is to show that Jesus, the true Messiah, is of the family of David. Even Jewish chroniclers would have no reason to complain, since in Ezra⁶ there are six generations omitted in one instance.⁷ Such omissions were mentioned: “Gentile Sages explained: there were some generations missing, unmentioned in the Scripture between them. Perhaps they received this knowledge from the Sages of Israel and it stands to reason. We see this too in the lineage of Ezra; seven generations are missing from Ahitub I until Ahitub II in the book of Ezra,⁸ but they are mentioned in Chronicles⁹ But here is a difficulty: the missing generations in David’s lineage are not mentioned anywhere, as opposed to the Ezra’s lineage.”¹⁰ Therefore, to put Ozias directly after Jehoram (or Joram) was done here in like manner, as we have seen with Hezekiah.¹¹ It would be hard to fault the record keepers back in those ancient days, since the sons of Jacob ended up in Egypt for over 400 years, then were exiled from the Promised Land for 70 years, and finally driven out completely in 70 AD. Also, with many of these men having more than one wife, in addition to concubines, keeping track of all their descendants was a chore. However, the Holy Spirit in His wisdom inspired Matthew to record those that mattered the most in tying Jesus to David and Abraham.

Verses 9-12: “Ozias was the father of Jotham. Jotham was the father of Ahaz. Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon. Amon was the father of Josiah. Josiah was the grandfather of Jehoiachin and his brothers, who lived during the time that the people were taken away to Babylon. After they were taken to Babylon: Jehoiachin was the father of Shealtiel. Shealtiel was the grandfather of Zerubbabel.” The son of Manasseh is recorded in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, Greek text as “Amos.” However, we also find him listed as “Amon,”¹² as do all the other Greek texts. What happened after the Jews were carried off into Babylon in 586 B.C., no doubt caused a disruption in the keeping of genealogies. Yet the record reads, “This is a list of Jehoiachin’s children after Jehoiachin became a prisoner in Babylon: His children were Shealtiel, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.”¹³ The Hebrew actually has, “Y’khonyah (Jehoiachin), also called Asir.”¹⁴ Jewish scholars explain that the word “asir” actually means, “one imprisoned, because he had been in prison, as we see by what was recorded in the King’s Record:¹⁵ “Later, Evil Merodach became the king of Babylon. He let King Jehoiachin of Judah out of prison.”¹⁶ Jehoiachin was only 18 years old when he became king, and his rule lasted only 3 months.¹⁷ And we find out why in Jeremiah.¹⁸ Then we notice that the writer skips over Shealtiel’s son and goes directly to the grandson, Zerubbabel. We also find that Shealtiel had a brother named, Pedaiah, and that Pedaiah is the father of Zerubbabel.¹⁹ However, elsewhere we read: “Then Jeshua son of Jozadak and the priests with him, along with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and the people with him, built the altar of the God of Israel.”²⁰ According to British theologian and commentator John Gill, Jews explain: “…in Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, Zerubbabel is called the son of Shealtiel, because he was his son’s son; for Pedaiah was the son of Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah; and…in many places children’s children are mentioned as children?”²¹ Gill goes on to say, “No doubt there are many instances of this; but to me it seems that Pedaiah was not the son of Shealtiel, but his brother. And I greatly suspect that Shealtiel had no children of his own, since none are mentioned; and that he adopted his brother Pedaiah’s son Zerubbabel, and made him his heir and successor in the government of Judah. However, it is certain, as one genealogical writer among the Jews observes, that he was of the son’s sons of Jechonias, king of Judah, from whom our Evangelist makes him to descend”.²² By this we can clearly see how important it was for the Jews to make sure they got the genealogy right. And in this case, again no one on either side argues against the Messiah being a descendant of David. But in Matthew’s case it was his intent to prove beyond doubt that Jesus of Nazareth surely qualified.

Verses 13-16: “Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Abiud was the father of Eliakim. Eliakim was the father of Azor. Azor was the father of Zadok. Zadok was the father of Achim. Achim was the father of Eliud. Eliud was the father of Eleazar. Eleazar was the father of Matthan. Matthan was the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Joseph.” It is notable that Jewish critics of this genealogy have not mounted any credible opposition to the list provided here in Matthew. This would then suggest that the writer was not making this up on his own, but was actually taking the information available from genealogical tables available among the Jews in his day. For instance, we are told that one Rabbi reported: “I found a roll of genealogical records in Jerusalem and therein was written…”²³ This confirmed what was written some 200 years earlier.”²⁴ Also the Jews tell us: “A book of genealogies was found in Jerusalem, wherein it was stated that Hillel was a descendant of King David.”²⁵ So these things were not hidden, and since we are familiar with Matthew’s expertise as a tax accountant, he would probably knew just where to look. And by the same token, had the Jews wanted to prove the writer wrong, they could have easily accessed the records themselves to do so. In fact, those who did could find no fault with it.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part I (con’t)

We must also take note that man can only reproduce through natural means, but God transcends these human limits. Did He not make Adam out of the earth’s dust? Could He then not also send His Son as a human being with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as forefathers by blood and by prophecy? And to those who believe, hasn’t He given them power through the Spirit to become the children of God? To modern authors, this genealogy does not contain the catchy phraseology so typical of contemporary works and which they claim is necessary to hold the reader’s interest. And rightly so, because this writer’s account is not a novel, but the advent of the greatest story every written. Over the centuries there have been many critics concerning this genealogy, but we must remember that the author was tracing the human side of Jesus’ family, not the divine. Therefore, while knowing who fathered whom was needed, it is more important to know that it was the heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit who brought His Son into the world, and this spiritual genealogy is the most significant. Not only for Jesus, but for all those who would eventually be called the children of God. As a matter of fact, one Jewish writer who devoted his learning to publishing anti-Christian works of Jewish authors, traveled long distances to gather his material. He became convinced that one medieval polemic work titled: “Toledot Yeshu,”¹ made Jews guilty of blaspheming Jesus. So he implored them to restrain their fellow Jews from mocking Jesus, Mary, the cross, the mass, and Christian teachings.² But it would take two world wars before Christians worldwide would deplore the treatment of Jews, and tone down the animosity on both sides. But one thing both Jews and Christians agreed to was that the Messiah would come through the family of David. One respected Rabbi said: “In the generation when the son of David [i.e., the Messiah] will come, scholars will be few in number, and as for the rest, their eyes will be blurred by sorrow and grief.”³ Jewish literature also agrees with Matthew’s lineage by recognizing: “…there are two women from whom come king David, and king Solomon, and King Messiah; and these two are Tamar and Ruth.”⁴ The acknowledgment of the lineage of Jesus is also supported by Jewish Messianic thinkers who say: “From Joseph in Egypt we infer that success and prosperity in life accrue sooner or later to everyone who observes the rite of the covenant and keeps himself pure and chaste. Our thinking is confirmed by the example of Boaz, concerning whom we read [said to Ruth], ‘As the Lord lives, lie down until the morning.’⁵ The Tempter wished to lead Boaz into sin; but faithful and true to his oath, he resisted the temptation and thus kept pure the sign of the covenant. Therefore, he was honored by fathering those whose offspring became kings and rulers over all other kings, and also of becoming the ancestral forefathers of King Messiah who is called by the name of the Holy One.”⁶ The mention of Boaz ushers in another well-known individual, his mother, the prostitute named Rahab who helped Joshua conquer Jericho. Because of her cooperation she and her relatives were saved from destruction. Tradition has it that she ended up becoming the wife of one of Joshua’s generals named Salmon.⁷ The Jews taught: “Aminadab fathered Nahshon, who was the head of the household of the tribe of Judah, and Nahshon then fathered Salmon the Righteous.⁸ He is the Salmon of Bethlehem of Judah, and Netophah, whose sons abolished the guards which the wicked Jeroboam had set over the highways. They served their father, and were reassuring children, like balm”.⁹ Not only did Rahab conceive Boaz, but Jewish literature tells us: “Eight prophets who were also priests were descended from Rahab the harlot, namely, Neriah, Baruch, Serayah, Mahseyah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanamel and Shallum.’ Rabbi Judah says: Hulda the prophetess was also one of the descendants of Rahab the harlot. We know this because it is written here ‘the son of Tikvah’ and it is written elsewhere, in connection with Rahab, ‘the family line of the scarlet thread!’”¹⁰ That scarlet thread was the sign given to Rahab for her to display on her apartment window so that the troops would pass by her apartment and not destroy it or anyone inside. How amazing that Jesus was a part of the family line known as the “scarlet thread,” because it too is a symbol of His precious blood that He blessed at His last meal with the disciples, and which is the cleansing reservoir that washes away all our sins and makes us clean in heart and mind, as well as the powerful source that heals our diseases through His wounds. Based on this information, we need not cringe when we mention the harlot Rahab as one of Jesus’ notable ancestors. Also, as much as the Jews detested men marrying outside the Israelite bloodline, even they admit that Ruth, who became Boaz’s wife, was an exceptional outsider as well. Jewish writers tell us: “Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left a widow, and her two sons were left orphans. They transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord and took foreign wives for themselves, from the daughters of Moab. The name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Ruth, the daughter of Eglon the king of Moab, and they lived there for a period of about ten years.”¹¹ However, some Rabbis point out: “In the exercise of His justice God’s reluctance to take human life is shown also in His treatment of Mahlon and Chilion, for first their horses died, and then their camels and their donkeys died, after that their father died.”¹² This fact of Ruth being a Moabite princess is confirmed by later writers: “For as a reward for the forty-two sacrifices offered up by Balak, he was privileged that Ruth should be his descendant; as Rabbi Jose ben Huna said: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, the grandson of Balak, king of Moab.”¹³ It should also be noted here that another woman named Tamar was part of our Lord’s genealogy.¹⁴ One Jewish commentator surmised, that when Judah saw her, she “…appeared to be suitable as a wife, the daughter of a prominent person, a trader named Shua, who was known as a generous person,” it might be likely that Judah may have married her for her looks or as a possible door to her father Shua’s fortune.¹⁵ Another esteemed Jewish Rabbi sees the same connection by pointing out: “Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite,” which he mentions, “implies that he married her on account of her father.”¹⁶ This of course, went against the teachings of the patriarchs. So we see that Rahab,¹⁷ the well-known prostitute from Jericho, and Ruth, the Moabitess,¹⁸ were all Gentile women. This may help explain why Jesus called Saul of Tarsus to become His ambassador to the Gentiles, because they were such an integral part of His human heritage. The writer goes on to tell us that Obed was the father of Jesse, even though some Jewish scholars do not believe that Jesse was the immediate son of Obed, but part of the fourth generation after him; though no other sons are mentioned between them in the Book of Ruth. One Jewish historian lists them this way, “Boaz was apparently 300 years old when he fathered Obed and he died immediately after his union with Ruth. His father Salmon died when the Israelites entered the Land. But one Rabbi disagrees and explains in his commentary on Ruth, that these elders; Salmon, Boaz, Obed and Jesse, were still alive at David’s birth.”¹⁹ Therefore, Jesse is rightly placed among the forefathers of Christ, since the Messiah was to be a branch of his family tree, and is called the root of Jesse,²⁰ which words are interpreted as the Messiah by many of the Jewish scholars. As a matter of fact, Jewish theologians say: “There is a further allusion to this union of the spiritual nature with the human nature in these words: ‘Because as long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth,²¹ because divine life on the earth is only possible through the Messiah, the son of Jesse. He it is, who is master and lord over all, and from him humanity and individual life receive their nourishment and sustenance.”²² A Jewish prayer also reveals this thought: “Samuel prayed: ‘ Give us discernment, O LORD, to know Your ways, and cut away evil from our hearts we can reverence You, and forgive us so that we may be redeemed, and keep us far from suffering, and satisfy us in the pastures of Your land, and gather our far-flung brothers and sisters from the four corners of the earth, and let them who err from Your remedies for sin be disciplined, and lift up Your hand against the wicked , and let the righteous rejoice as they build Your city and establish the Temple and in their exaltation of the descendant of David Your servant and the preparation of a light for the son of Jesse Your Messiah; before we call may You answer; blessed art You, O LORD, who hears and answers prayer.”²³ Jewish men in many countries repeat this prayer every day of the year. But it has a familiar ring to the prayer our Lord taught His disciples, and may have been somewhat of an inspiration for our Master. As such, we should also pray and thank our heavenly Father that by way of His love, mercy and grace we too are included in the spiritual genealogy that we trace back to Him through His Son Jesus the Christ. So Matthew leaves no doubt the the Jewish people and leaders were ripe for the coming of the Messiah as a descendant of David. But few of them agreed on who He would be and how He would appear. So in their biases caused them to miss Him when He did arrive. When you look at the secular world today where hope abounds for a world leader that will bring all mankind together in peace and harmony, they too overlook the man from Galilee because He does not fit their mold.

HELPFUL HINTS:  There are a number of things that took me several years to comprehend, but which turned out to increase my joy of reading:

First: “Do not read fast, just to reach the end of the document in a hurry.”   I used to do that in High School so I could finish my assignment and get out of class early.  I learned very little and remembered even less.  Read slowly, examining each word for its meaning.

Second: If after reading a sentence the meaning is not crystal clear, read it again and again until it makes sense.  This will not only enrich your knowledge, but you will maintain it longer in your recall memory bank.

Third: Since you are reading the Bible, do it for God’s glory.  Make Him proud of you for taking the time and interest in what He inspired those who believe in His Son to write for our benefit.  Now, enjoy!

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER ONE

Part I

Verse 1-5: “This is the family history of Jesus the Messiah. He came from the family of David, who was from the family of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah. (Their mother was Tamar.) Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Ram. Ram was the father of Amminadab. Amminadab was the father of Nahshon. Nahshon was the father of Salmon. Salmon was the father of Boaz. (His mother was Rahab.) Boaz was the father of Obed. (His mother was Ruth.) Obed was the father of Jesse.” One of the first questions a Christian, who starts reading this Gospel, might ask, is this: “Why did the writer start with such a long, boring genealogy?” The answer to that is quite simple. He wanted any Jew who opened this scroll to see that the subject being written about was a born Jew, with a documented Jewish lineage. That way, they would be more prone to continue reading. Then they would then find out that not only was this Jesus a Jew, but that the biographer of His story was a Jew as well, and wrote in Hebrew like a Jew. I experienced first hand what difference this can make while training and serving as a chaplain resident at a major hospital. Each week, a member of our class would be assigned to speak at a chapel service which was open to hospital patients, families, and staff. On the day I was assigned to speak, I opened by saying that I wanted to read from an ancient document about a conversation between two men, a Rabbi and a fellow Jew. So I read my text in which the Jew addressed Jesus as “Rabbi.” When the service was over, a Rabbi, who was part of the team, came running up to me and asked excitedly, “Tell me what document you were reading from. I can tell that the words you read certainly came from a wise Rabbi, I would recognize them anywhere!” You can imagine the look on his face when I opened my Bible and pointed to a scripture from the Gospel of Matthew.¹ If we are willing to read the Old Testament while keeping it in context of the times during which Moses and the Prophets lived; or read the works of Shakespeare with the understanding that this was during Elisabethian times in England, then why not, in order to better understand what is being said in the New Testament, give it the same privilege of speaking to us with the authenticity that comes from knowing what kind of world Jesus and the disciples faced during the time of their ministry. For the Christian, it is important to examine this genealogy on a spiritual level, because the promise for their redemption and salvation is traced back to Abraham. This makes any claims by Jesus to be the son of David and the promised Messiah, verifiable. The Jews had clear rules on how a family history was generated. They said: “…only a father’s family may be called a pure-blooded family, but a mother’s family cannot be called a pure-blooded family.”² This no doubt was very influential in Matthew’s charting the genealogy of the family of Jesus. But just reading this genealogy it is not enough to get all the nuances. For instance, when reading it in the King James Version, the phrase “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,” might conclude that this was His full name. I found out that others drew the same conclusion. One Jewish commentator said: “Yeshua the Messiah” is rendered “Jesus Christ” in other English versions, as if the man’s first name were “Jesus” and his last name “Christ.” Neither is the case.”³ It would be more grammatically correct if rendered: “Jesus the Christ.” This combination comes from the Hebrew: Yeshua the Messiah. The word Messiah represents the phrase: “Anointed One,” can be traced to Daniel’s prophecy where he speaks of an “anointed leader or prince.”⁴ The word Messiah is never used in Jewish Scripture, but it is utilized in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other rabbinic literature. Furthermore, the idea of an everlasting king who is a descendant of David, is based on God’s promise to David: “When your days come to an end and you sleep with your ancestors, I will establish one of your descendants to succeed you, one of your own flesh and blood; and I will set up his rulership. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever. I will be a father for him, and he will be a son for me…Thus your house and your kingdom will be made secure forever before you; your throne will be set up forever”.⁵ In Jewish theology the significance of being known as the “Anointed One” is that whether they are a king or priests, they are invested with authority in any ceremony to anoint with holy oil.⁶ Therefore, inherent in the concept of “Messiah” is the idea of a special person being given God’s priestly and kingly authority. In addition, a very beautiful suggestion is found between the lines of these verses containing our Lord’s genealogy. How could the divine Son of God who descended from heaven to earth, through the womb of a virgin woman in human form after being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, have a human ancestry? Again, any Christian reading this lineage might find it boring and repetitious, but to the Jewish reader it was a clear standard for establishing one’s place in the Jewish family. History tells us that Jews were careful not to cite any women, foreigners, or people of ill repute in their genealogies, because that would be unacceptable in order to keep the purity of the family heritage intact. In examining this genealogy of Jesus, it’s clear to see that Matthew was tracing it through the lineage of Joseph. Some people question this since it appears that Joseph had very little to do with Mary’s pregnancy? The wonderful truth is this: both the natural ancestors and spiritual descendants of Jesus Christ are related to Him by prophecy in a promise. Jesus was as much a descendant of David as we are descendants of Emmanuel. The reason why Jesus is first called the son of David, and then the son of Abraham, is because Matthew wanted the Jewish reader to see that Jesus was tied to David as the son of royalty, and to Abraham as the son of promise. It was necessary to start with Abraham because the Jews taught: “Two hundred and ninety-two years passed from the time of the Flood until the birth of our forefather Abraham – who is the origin of our lineage, the ancestor of many nations.”⁷ Therefore, Jews could not be displeased with Matthew for beginning the genealogy of our Lord with Abraham. In reality, it seems an odd way to begin because Abraham was neither Jew nor Israelite. He was a Semite from Chaldea. However, he was the obedient one to whom God made this promise: “I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you and I will make your name great; and you are to be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you all the families of the earth will be blessed”.⁸ As one Rabbi points out, here we have three promises made by God to Abram: He will father a great nation; His name will become great; and He will be a great blessing. To this the Rabbi adds God’s message to Abram: “Being a source of blessing will make it impossible for you to become the victim of anyone’s curse. In the unlikely event that anyone should attempt to place a curse on you, I, Myself, will curse that person.”⁹ It is thrilling to see that these same three promised were fulfilled in Abraham’s future son, the Messiah. And just as this was contingent on Abram leaving his homeland and go to Canaan, so it was contingent on the Son of God leaving His heavenly homeland and come to earth. Also, another Rabbi points out that God promised Abram to go with him and guide him to carry out His will. So it was with our Lord, that the Father was with Him and guided Him to His destiny in order to fulfill His will. No wonder Matthew wanted to tie the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham.¹⁰ Some other Jewish Rabbis commented on this promise of God to Abraham. One of them remarked: “Some say a change of residence also can avert a harsh decree, as may be seen from what happened to our father Abraham. After the Lord said unto Abram: ‘Get yourself out of your country, away from your kinsmen and away from your father’s house¹¹,¹² there followed directly, the words, ‘And I will make you a great nation’.”¹³ Another Rabbi taught that God said to Abraham: “Since it is not becoming for Me to be called on to bestow blessing upon My creatures, I will turn over the bestowal of blessing to you Abraham – whomsoever you bestow blessings on I will place My seal on the blessing you bestowed.”¹⁴ How well this fits into our message to sinners, that they move out of the world of sin where they are living, and move into the new place of living in Christ where they will not only be blessed, but be a blessing to others. That means, we need not only ask God to bless others, but we can bless them in His name as well and He will give it His stamp of approval. One Jewish commentator mentioned that Noah blessed his sons; Isaac blessed Jacob; and Jacob blessed the twelve tribes; and the predecessors of Moses bestowed many blessings on their particular generations. So He asks: “From whom did Moses’ predecessors learn that each of them was to bestow blessings when there was need for it? They learned to do so from no other than the Holy One. For when Adam came into the world, the Holy One blessed him;¹⁵ when Noah and his company came out from the ark, the Holy One…appeared at once above Noah and blessed him.¹⁶ The world was maintained by this blessing until Abraham came into the world, and for his sake the Holy One added this blessing.”¹⁷ One Jewish translator renders this blessing on Abraham this way: “I will bless you…and you will be a blessing.”¹⁸ Another Jewish commentator points out that this blessing on Abraham was contingent upon his willingness to leave the Ur of the Chaldees with its idol worship; where he suffered because of his worship of the One True God, “…so the Eternal told him to leave theses places…to fulfill his original intention that his worship be dedicated to Him alone.”¹⁹ So that’s the key to keep the blessings flowing from God out into the world. Therefore, this makes it that much more important that we know whom we bless and why we give them our blessing. Oh what a wonderful message we find in these somewhat tiresome list of names in the family of Jesus the Christ.

Whenever the song leader or pastor asks you to lift your hands in prayer or praise to the Lord, remind yourself that lifted hands are a sign of surrender. So when you raise your hands to magnify the Lord, if you are not truly signaling your surrender to Him and His will, then put your hands back down until you really mean it. Then you’ll see what God can do in and through your life by His Holy Spirit. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PREFACE (Conclusion)

As we have seen, all the works that followed the initial revelation of God to Moses down through the scribes and prophets, were compiled, commented upon, with exegesis and explanations. In the same manner, after our Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, those who followed Him wrote down His teachings and sayings. This would be followed by writings by succeeding generations of scholars in their attempt to make more understandable to their audiences. While many books have been written on the law of Moses, many more have been penned on the gospel of Jesus the Christ.

THE GOSPELS (“Good News”)

As far as we know, Jesus never wrote a book, letter, psalm or homily. Everything was copied down by those who followed Him, and it was passed on to their followers. Just as Moses received everything from God the Father, so Jesus tells His disciples in John, Chapter 14, that everything He was telling them came from the same heavenly Father. Thus we can see why Moses and Jesus were often compared and why God told Moses He was sending another prophet just like him to the future generations. These new Verbal Teachings can be found mostly in Matthew’s Gospel, Chapters 5-7. It took some 30 to 50 years before the journal of Matthew and the memories of John, two of Jesus’ disciples, were finally written down. Matthew wrote his in Hebrew, which was then translated into Greek. Since John was not known to have learned how to write, scholars believe that one of his disciples at the church in Ephesus wrote down John’s sermons and teachings. Since many of the believers there were Greek speaking, the Gospel of John may have been written in Greek from the beginning. Peter also was not known to have been able to write, therefore scholars suggest that his nephew John Mark, became Peter’s scribe and wrote down much of what Peter remembered, which then became known as the Gospel of Mark. This helps us understand why the Scriptures are referred to as “inspired” by the Holy Spirit. These writings then could be classified as the New Testament version of the Mishnah. But unlike the Jewish Mishnah, early church leaders decided not to include the writings of other Christian teachers who were disciples of the original apostles, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, 1 & 2 Epistles of Clement, the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the Church History of Eusebius, etc. However, these should be required reading of all students of the Christian Mishnah.

Then came Luke, a Gentile who served as a traveling companion to Paul the apostle. At some point, Luke decided to write a biography of the life of Jesus of Nazareth after doing research among Paul’s friends in Jerusalem, many of whom were physical followers of Jesus. With Luke being a Gentile, he wrote his biography of Jesus and church history in Greek. After finishing his Gospel, Luke then decided to write the first history of the Christian Church, which became known as the Acts of the Apostles. Along with his works are the Letters and Epistles of the disciples on the teachings of Jesus, such as Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, and Jude. These can be seen as composing the Christian Talmud. There are a number of other works that were not deemed accurate and reliable enough to be included, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Hebrews, Gospel of Mary, etc. These have been preserved and are known as the New Testament Apocrypha.

Finally, we have the writings of Saul of Tarsus, known better by his Greek name, Paul. His epistles and letters could be considered the Christian version of the Gemara, because he spends little time on the life of Jesus, but feels that the Lord gave him special insight and understanding of the Verbal Teachings, after their meeting on the road to Damascus. So he set out to “complete” the message received by the disciples from Jesus the Messiah who received it from His heavenly Father. Since then, thousands of books have been written about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, sent from God the Father. And like the writings of the Jewish Rabbis, there are many points of disagreement and contention on what Jesus really said, and what He meant by what He said. But better to have a healthy debate than no debate at all. Hopefully, what the Holy Spirit inspired me to share with you here, will contribute to that debate and the Living Word of God will continue to shed its light so those in darkness can see.

FOOTNOTES, REFERENCES AND QUOTATIONS

I decided to put all Scriptural references and references to resources in footnotes. I did this to keep the reading uninterrupted, but also give the reader a localized place to look for the origin of the quote. For all non-Scriptural references, I tried to give the description of the book or article as clearly as possible, so that anyone researching them in the books or articles quoted will be able to find the reference quickly.

Since many readers may not possess or may be able to access all the literature quoted in this commentary, I also included as much of the text from its original source as possible so that the student would not feel disadvantaged because he or she did not possess that particular book. While some of these ancient documents were written in a very concise and scattered ways, I gave a larger portion of the quote so that the reader could better see what the people of that day were being taught, and to help them understand exactly what Jesus confronted when He claimed to be telling them the truth, even when it often contradicted what they were hearing. I also took the liberty of revising the grammar and spelling to make the reading easier.

Also, I have endeavored as much as possible with my limited library and resources, to show how the words, parables, teachings, and spiritual lessons Jesus used to teach the truth from the Father, were already a part of the Jewish learning and culture. This gave His words a familiar sound and caused His listeners to be more open and receptive. However, when our Lord took on what the traditional oral interpretation of the Scriptures taught to show them the error of their thinking and belief, that allowed them to see the contrast more clearly.

TEXT TRANSLATION

The basic translation of the scriptural text in this commentary is taken from the Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, Published by the World Bible Translation Center, Forth Worth, TX, but with many modifications and redaction’s on my part for a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew text. In their Bible they state: “This copyrighted material may be quoted up to 1000 verses without written permission.” So unless the text printed is otherwise identified such as The Complete Jewish Bible, or some other version, it will be from the ESV. Since Matthew contains 1074 verses, permission will be requested should this manuscript ever be put into print.

In addition, when I began my ten year project of reading the Old Testament through once, and the New Testament twice, in one year using a different English version each time, I found myself comparing what each new translation said with the KJV that I grew up on. As a result, I did not get the impact of what truths the translators uncovered. So I started all over again, and this time I read each version as though I was reading the Bible for the first time. It certainly opened my mind and flooded my soul with a new appreciation for what God was saying through His servants. I would suggest that you do the same here. It may impact you in significant ways so that you can affect others with what you have learned in a remarkable manner.

ABBREVIATIONS

Bk. or Book – Book number in a multi-book volume.

cf. or confer – Means to look and compare subject matter or quotation

Ch. or Chapter – Chapter number in a book.

ff. – “folios” (plural) or pages, chapters, verses.

ibid. or ibidem – “in the same place” of the work previously quoted just prior to this one.

loc. cit. or loco citato – “in the place cited” in the paragraph and subject being written about.

op. cit. or opere citato – “in the work cited” initially containing full data of the work being quoted.

Sec. or Section

trans. or translated – identifying the individual who translated this work from the original language.

vol. or vols. – volume or volume number within the set.

Next we will look at the Gospel of Matthew with the teachings of Jesus as explained in the light of what He said about these teachings of the Rabbis, as well as how He used His knowledge of these traditions to convince His audience He knew what He was talking about.

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

INTRODUCTION (Con’t)

Here are some additional documents that you will also see inside the Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud. They are meant as additions to, clarifications of, and interpretations for various teachings of the Rabbis. They give us a clearer view of what the Rabbis were teaching and how our Lord used many of these known and commonly held beliefs to point out what He wanted the people to know about the New Covenant that God the Father sent Him to bring to the children of Abraham.

THE GEMARA (“Tradition/Completion”)

When you look at a folio in certain editions of the Babylonian Talmud today, you often find interspersed between the Mishnah text THAT IS ALWAYS TYPED IN CAPITAL LETTERS a section titled “Gemara.” In Aramaic, the word Gemara means “tradition.” In Hebrew, it means denotes “completion.” Indeed, the Gemara serves as a compilation of the various Rabbinic discussions and commentary on the teachings of earlier Rabbis in the Mishnah. As such, their interpretations were added to give a fuller understanding of the Mishnah, in order to make the teaching more complete. While the Mishnah contains quotes from Rabbis who lived from about 100 BC to 200 AD. As such, these first Rabbis are called in Hebrew: Tanaim – “teachers.” Then in the Gemara, the Rabbis quoted here lived between 200 AD and 500 AD. This second group of Rabbis are called in Hebrew Amoraim – “expositors” or “interpreters.” So between the two groups you have some 700 years of commentary, added to the teachings that go as far back as Ezra the scribe on the Old Testament.

THE MIDRASH AGGADA (“Story Telling”)

Whenever you see a document referred to as a Midrash Aggada, these are teachings in the form of homilies similar to parables. For instance, a Midrash may attempt to explain why Adam didn’t stop Eve from eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. One of the best-known Midrashim (plural of Midrash) deals with Abraham’s childhood in early Mesopotamia, where he is said to have smashed the idols in his father’s shop because even at that age he knew there existed only One True God. These Midrash Aggadah can be found in both Talmuds; in Midrashic Collections, and in Midrash Rabbah, which means “Revered Midrash.”

THE MIDRASH HALACHA (“Sermons on the Law”)

Whereas Midrash Aggada focuses on Biblical characters as they pertain to values and ideas, Midrash Halacha focus on Jewish law and practice. Midrash Halacha attempts to take Biblical texts that are either general or unclear, and clarify their meaning. A Midrash of this nature may explain why, for instance, the tefillin¹ which are worn on the head and arm, should be used during prayer and how they should be worn.

THE MIDRASH RABBAH (“Great Sermons”)

The term Midrash Rabbah can refer to parts, or the collective whole, of stories and allegories on the books of the Tanakh – the term for the Hebrew Bible. The term “Rabbah”, means “great,” and is given as part of their name. These are as follows: Genesis Rabbah. Exodus Rabbah. Leviticus Rabbah, etc. These Rabbah stories usually follow the books in the Tanakh in the same order. It is an attempt to search and investigate the text through minute examination so as to interpret the Tanakh better, by bringing out the deeper or ethical meanings in the text. These are not to be taken as legal renderings concerning the Law. The largest collection of these Midrash Rabbah are contained in the Great Midrash, and are divided into Pesikta (Divisions), Mechilta (Treatise), Sifra (Book), and Sifre (Books).

THE TARGUM (Aramaic Version of the Jewish Bible)

This was a written paraphrase, explanation and expansion of the Jewish Scriptures that a Rabbi would give so that his listeners could better understand the Hebrew text. This is much like what the Living Bible and the Amplified Bible became to the readers of the King James Version of the Christian Bible. For instance, the Hebrew standard text of Genesis 1:1-2 reads: “In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.”² Compare this to the Targum of Palestine that goes: “At the beginning the Lord created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was vacancy and desolation, solitary of the sons of men, and void of every animal; and darkness was upon the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord breathed upon the face of the waters.”³ So when you see Targum, you know that it is a paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some Targum had commentaries added to them as well. – (To be continued tomorrow)